Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 10 269669 NNY 08 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 1 October 2010
- No appeal recorded
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 102-134 Hucknall Rd
- Ward
- Ward 7 · Anthony Perruzza
- Submitted
- 1 October 2010
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Related file
- 09 131219 NNY 08 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page
Description
Site Plan control application for mixed use development containing 47 three storey townhouse dwelling units and a single storey commercial building. Implements OMB-approved Zoning By-law 1186-2010(OMB). X-Ref with previous file 09 131219 NNY 08 OZ)
Linked lobbying registrations
These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.
Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored
Averton Developments Inc. · registration SM11821
102-134 Hucknall Road
Evidence Moderate confidence · score 0.83
A model scored this link between 0.7 and 0.9 out of 1. Links are not checked by a person, and links in this range are wrong more often: check the evidence before relying on it.
Source records
- Registration SM11821: 102-134 Hucknall Road (Lobbyist Registry)
- Development application 10 269669 NNY 08 SA at 102-134 Hucknall Rd: Site Plan control application for mixed use development containing 47 three storey townhouse dwelling units and a single storey commercial building. Implements OMB-approved Zoning By-law 1186-2010(OMB). X-Ref with previous file 09 131219 NNY 08 OZ) (Development Applications)
Matched text
- particulars: 102-134 Hucknall Road
Matched fields
- address
- 102-134 HUCKNALL RD
- application_address
- 102-134 HUCKNALL RD
Lobbying on linked registrations
1 linked registration · 1 communication · 1 meeting · 1 office contacted
Offices contacted
Linked registrationsData table· 1 row
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office of Councillor Perruzza | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 12 September 2011 |
Other registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
None.
Comparison with similar applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 7
5 lobbied · 28 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 5 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 28 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 3% | 3% | 0.04 |
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.